Adaptive Management Pilots for Resident Greylag Geese in Scotland – a Review of Their Achievements at the End of Their 5-Year Term

Report to Scottish Government

Adaptive Management Pilots for Resident Greylag Geese in Scotland – a review of their achievements at the end of their 5-year term

For further information on this report please contact: SNH Project Manager – Morag Milne Battleby House, Redgorton, Perth PH1 3EW Email: [email protected]

This report should be quoted as: Milne, M. 2018. Adaptive Management Pilots for Resident Greylag Geese in Scotland – a review of their achievements at the end of their 5-year term Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 3. BACKGROUND ...... 5 4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE FOUR PILOTS TO CONTROL POPULATIONS OF RESIDENT GREYLAG GEESE ...... 7 5. HOW EFFECTIVE WERE THE PILOTS? ...... 9 6. DID THE PILOTS DEMONSTRATE AN APPROACH THAT COULD BE APPLIED MORE WIDELY TO GOOSE MANAGEMENT? ...... 27 7. NEXT STEPS ...... 28 8. POLICY IMPLICATIONS ...... 29

ANNEX 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE TO REVIEW THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PILOTS...... 31 ANNEX 2. RESIDENT GREYLAG GOOSE POPULATIONS IN SCOTLAND...... 32 ANNEX 3. EXPENDITURE FOR THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PILOTS...... 34 ANNEX 4. SUMMARY OF THE MONITORING DATA COLLECTED DURING THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PILOTS ...... 36 ANNEX 5. SUMMARY OF FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS AND DAMAGE SURVEYS ...... 37

Adaptive Management Pilots for Resident Greylag Geese in Scotland – a review of their achievements at the end of their 5-year term

1. Introduction

This report summarises the results and lessons learnt from testing an adaptive management (AM) approach at a local level for Resident Greylag Geese1 in Scotland, and identifies policy approaches/actions for future consideration.

The Scottish Government started to consider sustainable management of goose populations in the 2010 quinquennial review of Scotland’s goose policy2. This stated that ‘we consider that sustainable management of a goose population requires that each population has a lower bound determined by population ecology (e.g. Population Viability Analysis) and legal obligations, and an upper bound determined by damage and management costs. Stakeholder preferences will inform decisions on both the lower and upper bounds.’

The 2010 Review categorised resident greylag goose populations as ‘low risk’ in terms of their conservation status and suggested we explore the potential for using AM approaches to help manage goose - agriculture conflicts.

Between 2012 and 2014 four AM pilots were established. They sought to manage populations of resident greylag geese in places with particularly high goose density. They sought to address goose-agriculture conflicts by reducing goose density and number to an agreed range, and to achieve it by a specified time. They were delivered by Local Goose Management Groups (LGMGs) with technical support from Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH). All of the Pilots came to an end in spring 2017.

This report summarises the findings from the Pilots, and draws on papers prepared for the National Goose Management Review Group and the Pilots’ annual reports. The operational details of each Pilot are described in the Pilots’ annual reports. The commissioning document (Annex 1) was agreed by National Goose Management Review Group (NGMRG) on 26 July 2017 which advises the Scottish Government about goose management in Scotland. It comprises representatives from; the National Farmers Union of Scotland (NFUS); Scottish Crofting Federation (SCF); Scottish Land and Estates (SLE); SNH and British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC).

In January 2012, the NGMRG established a short-life working group (Adaptive Management Sub-group) to focus on resident greylag geese.

This report is written by SNH. It was presented for comment to the NGMRG in May and October 2018 and to Local Goose Management Groups in July 2018.

2. Executive Summary

The population of resident greylag geese in Scotland has increased steadily since the 1980s3. In places with a particularly high goose density, farmers and crofters have reported

1 Throughout this report we refer to the ‘resident greylag goose’ but it is also commonly referred to as the ‘British greylag goose’ or the ‘native greylag goose’. See Mitchell, C., R. Hearn, and D.A. Stroud. 2012. The merging of populations of greylag geese breeding in Britain. British Birds 105: 498–505.

2 Crabtree R, Humphreys E, Moxey A & Wernham C. 2010 Review of Goose Management Policy in Scotland. Thetford: British Trust for Ornithology; 2011. Available at http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2011/02/03083950/0. See p. 151 for definition of sustainable population management, and section 2.7 for discussion including adaptive management.

3 that the geese are having considerable impact on agricultural income and undermining their ability to maintain the viability of their framing and crofting enterprises.

Four Pilots were established to test AM approaches for resident greylag geese; in particular, to test whether local populations of resident greylag geese could be effectively controlled to reduce the impacts of goose grazing on agricultural income and still retain their conservation interest.

The studies confirm that resident greylag goose productivity is high, the populations are robust and they can absorb substantial losses without impact upon their conservation status.

The Pilots demonstrate that with early intervention, some funding and with co-ordinated effort, farmers and crofters can control goose populations and still maintain their conservation interest.

The Pilots also demonstrate that it is possible to sell resident greylag goose meat in Scotland without jeopardising the conservation interest of the species.

The Pilots did not demonstrate a reduction in agricultural damage; surveys did not yield any evidence to suggest that goose impacts were reduced.

Policy recommendations for further consideration are:

• To use self-help, adaptive approaches, where possible, as the basic means to resolve goose management conflict. • To monitor the effects of any continued adaptive approaches on goose numbers, goose distribution and goose impacts on agriculture/crofting. • To extend sustainable sale of resident greylag goose meat where appropriate controls can be put in place. • To promote goose meat as a source of local food from nature to encourage the use of resident greylag goose carcasses generated by AM initiatives. • To develop agricultural and land use policies which support self-help approaches to controlling resident greylag goose populations (considering in particular the fragility of crofting systems, possible impacts on the provision of improved grazing and the amount of hunting effort).

What are the next steps/actions required?

• SNH is supporting LGMGs to make the transition from the Pilots to a self-help approach during 2017 and 2018 (until 31 March 2019). • SNH will support LGMGs to develop sustainable funding arrangements for AM: LGMGs are expected to develop business model(s) that generate income from sport shooting and the sale of resident greylag goose meat, identifying barriers and how these might be overcome (for example, infrastructure requirements such as mobile chiller facilities), limiting factors (such as the type/capacity of accommodation available, fit with other sporting activities, availability of staff/goose guides), and potential impacts/benefits to biodiversity, farming/crofting, other sporting activity, and the local community. • SNH will explore the potential to extend sale of resident greylag goose meat, including extending its sale to restaurants and hotels Scotland-wide. • It is suggested that government supports the promotion of local wild-fowling activities to assist farmers and crofters with goose control – promoting co-ordination and links

between wild-fowling communities and land managers/land owners experiencing serious agricultural damage.

3. Background

Wild geese are an important part of Scotland's natural heritage. In recent years, resident greylag goose populations have expanded their number and range, rising steadily since the 1980s3. By 2008/09, populations across Scotland had reached approximately 47,000 birds4. Population increases have been particularly dramatic on some Scottish islands. On the Uists the population increased from 150 birds in 1986 to around 6,000 in 20126. The population on Orkney increased from approximately 10,000 birds in 2008 to 21,000 in 2012 (a 19% annual increase)5. These steep rises are thought to be due to a combination of factors including increased protection, reduced levels of shooting, the availability of improved grazing, exploitation of this feeding resource (in preference to their traditionally used habitats natural fens, bogs and marshes), and mild winters3,6,8.

Range expansion across Scotland has been assisted by re-introductions since the 1930s7. Greylag geese were introduced to Orkney in the 1980s to enhance the sport shooting. In addition, colonisation from mainland Scotland and short stopping of Icelandic birds could both have contributed to greylag geese establishing on Orkney8.

In some locations large concentrations of geese can support wildlife tourism and sport shooting. But as numbers have grown many of the farmers and crofters that are affected have come to regard them as agricultural pests and there have been calls to control numbers in areas where geese were reported to be causing significant agricultural damage to grass and barley crops. For example, in 2009 a farmer questionnaire found approximately 11,000 acres of grassland and 1,250 acres of crop on Orkney suffered damage from resident greylag geese, and estimated that 33% of the grassland and 18% of the crop were ‘heavily damaged’9. Losses from both migratory and resident greylags have been estimated at £4,800 from an Orkney farm in 201410 and annual crop losses were estimated at £4,990 per annum on Shetland in 201211. Farmers and crofters continue to express their concern through letters to the press, politicians and to SNH.

3 https://monitoring.wwt.org.uk/our-work/goose-swan-monitoring-programme/species-accounts/british- greylag-goose/ 4 SNH commissioned Report 371 The population size of breeding greylag geese Anser anser in Scotland in 2008/09

5 Mitchell, C., A.J.Leitch & E. Meek. 2016. The abundance and distribution of British Greylag Geese on Orkney, August 2016. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 19pp.

6 Bainbridge, I. 2017. Goose management in Scotland: An overview Ambio (2017) 46(Suppl 2): 224. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0883-5

7 Mitchell, C., R. Hearn, and D.A. Stroud. 2012. The merging of populations of greylag geese breeding in Britain. British Birds 105: 498–505. 8 Mitchell, C., A.J. Leitch & E. Meek. 2014. The abundance and distribution of British Greylag Geese in Orkney, August 2014. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 23pp 9 Girvan M. 2009. Goose Survey to assess damage to grass and crops in Orkney. SAC Consulting. 10 Nancy Nicolson. 14 April 2014. Farmers Weekly. Available at https://www.fwi.co.uk/news/orkney- farmers-forced-to-adapt-as-geese-numbers-rocket 11 Lyall Halcrow. 2012. Report to Shetland Isles Council. Available at https://www.shetland.gov.uk/environmentalhealth/documents/Report- GREYLAGGOOSEDAMAGEONAGRICULTURALLANDONTHESHETLANDISLES.pdf

A summary of the current populations of resident greylag geese in the Pilot areas is included in Annex 2.

National and international law relating to conservation of birds recognise that hunting and control of certain bird species are legitimate management activities. The main principle set in the Birds Directive for hunting of selected bird species is that any use of wild birds must comply with the principle of wise and ecologically balanced use. Any such activity must be compatible with the maintenance of the population of these species at a satisfactory level.

Work to address the conflicts caused by geese and agriculture is being trialled at a European Level under the African and Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA). The AM of the Svalbard population of pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus is being used to address an escalation of agricultural conflicts in host countries. Pink-footed geese are on Annex II 2 of the Birds Directive and, as such, may be hunted under national legislation. Members States must ensure that hunting of species does not jeopardise their conservation status12 . They are therefore co-ordinating hunting effort to deliver an AM harvest that respects conservation targets. The European Goose Management Platform13 is considering how this AM approach might be translated to more tightly protected species and will report to AEWA in due course.

Resident greylag geese are considered a single species derived from a native population and widespread ‘re-established’ populations (bred from the eggs of the native birds)14, 15. Resident greylag geese are protected under the Schedule 2 part I of the Wildlife and Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 (as amended) and they can be hunted during the open season. However, in the Outer Hebrides, Caithness and Sutherland and Wester Ross resident greylag geese still have special protection under Schedule 2 part I of this Act (protected by special penalties during the closed season)16. This is because these areas were strongholds for the native greylag geese.

Greylag geese (both resident and migratory) are on Annex II 1 and III 2 of the Birds Directive and they can be hunted in Scotland and throughout the EC. They may be legally sold, subject to consultation with the European Commission to assess whether proposals are sustainable. The hunting season is restricted in Scotland under the Wildlife and Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 (as amended).

In response to the 2010 National Goose Policy Review, the Scottish Government agreed to trial the use of AM approaches to reduce goose - agriculture conflicts caused by resident greylag geese in Scotland. At the same time, Scottish Government allowed the licenced sale of resident greylag goose carcasses and products to avoid waste and to generate income for the local economy.

This approach is consistent with the Scottish Government’s national goose policy17 which has at its heart 3 key objectives which are to:

12 Available at http://egmp.aewa.info/pink-footed-goose 13 Available at http://egmp.aewa.info/ 14 Available at https://monitoring.wwt.org.uk/our-work/goose-swan-monitoring-programme/species- accounts/british-greylag-goose/

15 Mitchell, C & Hearn, Richard & Stroud, David. (2012). The merging of populations of Greylag Geese breeding in Britain. 105. 498-505. 16 Available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/69 17 Available at https://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Wildlife- Habitats/management/species/geese/national

• Meet the UK's nature conservation obligations for geese, within the context of wider biodiversity objectives. • Minimise economic losses experienced by farmers and crofters as a result of the presence of geese. • Maximise the value for money of public expenditure.

4. Development of the four Pilots to control populations of resident greylag geese

The Pilots were established to test whether local populations of resident greylag geese could be managed effectively to reduce the impacts of goose grazing on agricultural activity, whilst retaining their conservation interest. They sought to manage populations of resident greylag geese in places with particularly high goose density and goose-agriculture conflicts.

They aimed to reduce and then to maintain goose density and number to within a range agreed with the NGMRG, and within a 5-year period (by spring 2017).

The US Department of Interior – Technical Guide to Adaptive Management18 and later Nils Bunnefeld’s report about AM19 provided key references about adaptive management and they were used to develop the Pilots.

Papers presented to the NGMRG (Nov 2011 and Jan 2012)20, 27 outlined the scientific and management principles that should underpin an AM approach to goose populations. These were:

• To know goose numbers and life statistics, especially mortality from shooting. • To have a degree of control over the numbers of geese being shot each year. • To be able to assess population data and adjust the take each year. • To have agreement and buy-in from local interests.

The NGMRG agreed these principles would underpin the approach to the resident greylag pilot projects21.

In April 2012, local communities were invited to express an interest in taking part. To be eligible they had to: • hold a discrete population of resident greylag geese i.e. an island population • demonstrate community buy-in, • experience high numbers of resident greylag geese which were not associated with any SPAs22 classified for resident greylags • demonstrate a willingness to annually collect bag data, undertake counts and productivity assessments to satisfy the underlying principles outlined above.

The target population ranges proposed by NGMRG were set for the Pilots using the most recent counts (2008/9 census23 ), a 2009 Population Viability Analysis (PVA)24 based on

18 Byron K. Williams, Robert C. Szaro, and Carl D. Shapiro. (2009). USDA Technical Guide to Adaptive Management 19 Bunnefeld, N., Redpath, S. & Irvine, J. 2015. A review of approaches to adaptive management. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 795. 20 Bainbridge I. (25 January 2012) Adaptive Management for local greylag populations (Unpublished SNH file A651607) 21 National Goose Management Review Group. 27 January 2012. Minutes. Available at https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0038/00389860.pdf 22 Until April 2018 South Uist Machair and Lochs SPA was classified for breeding greylag geese. There are no other SPAs in Scotland that are classified for breeding greylag geese.

data from Tiree and Uist, the estimated goose density on improved land25 (where goose impacts would be most keenly felt), and the number of geese that may have been present before serious damage or complaint occurred.

GSAG approved the use of an agreed number of geese per hectare of improved land26 as an entry criterion, and to determine target population ranges for the Pilots. The AM subgroup applied consistent density thresholds to all potential Pilots, seeking to achieve a compromise between the various interests. LGMGs were invited to aim to deliver a population density of 0.25 resident greylag geese per ha of improved land (+/-10% range) in areas supporting significant numbers of migratory geese in winter; and to aim for 0.5 geese per ha of improved land (+/-10% range) in other areas (May 2012 papers to NGMRG)27,28. (On Uist the target range was more precautionary at 1 goose per ha of improved land because SNH had less confidence in the available count data.) The NGMRG considered these targets would meet the objectives of making meaningful reductions to goose damage, and would not threaten the viability of the local goose populations. Coincidentally, for all of the Pilots, these targets generally equated to halving the size of the existing goose population.

The Uist, Orkney and Islay LGMGs met the eligibility criteria and expressed an interest in setting up Pilots in 2012. After some negotiation with LGMGs, the NGMRG agreed the most appropriate target densities and annual bag to achieve them, and the Uist and Orkney Pilots started in 2012. The Islay LGMG chose to go it alone; the LGMG aimed to reduce the size of the population to significantly less than the goose density that the NGMRG suggested and it did not wish to negotiate on its targets. In 2013, the Tiree and Coll LGMG also applied to join the Pilots, and in 2014 the Lewis and Harris LGMG applied to join the Pilots. Both were accepted. The end date for all 4 Pilots was spring 2017.

All of the LGMGs sought to achieve their agreed target population range by March 2017 by co-ordinated shooting; and by taking an additional ‘adaptive management bag’ (AM bag). Each year, SNH set annual bag limits for each Pilot using the most recent bird counts, productivity estimates and bag data to progress toward the agreed target population for the end of the Pilot year (31 March) at the rate agreed with the LGMG.

Bag data comprised birds taken through sport, under out-of-season licences and through the AM bag licensed under the Pilots. LGMGs worked with local goose guides and others to gather their voluntary bag returns to estimate the size of the bag taken by sport shooting. The LGMG had no control over the number of birds taken by sport shooting although they were able to liaise with the shooting community. SNH collated the mandatory returns from any out-of-season licences it issued in the Pilot areas.

23 Mitchell, C., L. Griffin, M. Trinder & J. Newth. 2010. The population size of breeding Greylag Geese Anser anser in Scotland in 2008/09. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 371. 24 Trinder, M., Mitchell, C. & Bowler, J. (2009). An assessment of the status of the native greylag goose (Anser anser) population in Scotland and an analysis of future trends based on population modelling. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 318. 25 Land Cover Map 2007. 2007. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Available at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/services/land-cover-map-2007. SNH used the LCM to estimate the area of improved land (improved grassland and arable land) in areas with high goose density. 26 NGMRG GSAG subgroup. September 2012. Minutes. A786539. 27 Urquhart C. (2012). Densities of Scottish breeding greylag geese in selected areas of Scotland (Unpublished SNH file A714941)

28 Urquhart C. (2012). British Greylag Geese – draft estimates of shooting levels required for adaptive management (May 2012). (Unpublished SNH file A709709)

Data for some of the Pilots was at first limited and initial bag limits for these Pilots were based on historical data and estimated bag returns. As count, bag return and productivity data built up, SNH was able to develop a very basic population model (a Schema) to estimate bag limits for each Pilot29. SNH used this model to set annual bag limits, and adjust them after each count.

The AM bag was taken either by competent volunteer marksmen or by paid marksmen, depending on who owned the shooting rights within the Pilot areas. The Pilots operated at different times of year; the Orkney Pilot took its AM bag in August and September, before the arrival of the migratory greylags. In the other Pilot areas there were no migratory greylag geese and in these areas the AM bag was taken throughout the winter or into spring.

In addition to shooting, some LGMGs also contributed to the AM bag by licensed egg oiling. This method allows people without shooting rights and people who do not shoot to contribute to population control. It made a small contribution to the AM bag and it is fully recorded in the annual reports for the Pilots.

In addition to managing population levels, the pilots introduced a trial project involving licenced sale of goose meat to promote sustainable use of carcasses generated by the AM bag.

There is no proposal to continue the Pilots, but SNH is currently providing support for transitional arrangements over the next two years (from March 2017 until March 2019) to help LGMGs secure long term benefit from the Pilots. The aim of this is not to extend the pilots but to manage the transition from government support to self-help and self-financing arrangements. Goose management groups submitted management and research proposals for these transitional arrangements and £60,000 funding is committed to support them. This brings the total budget for the AM Pilots to approximately £350,000 (and to £400,000 with the inclusion of the post-Pilot transitional period).

5. How effective were the Pilots?

To assess their effectiveness, we consider how well the AM pilots delivered their agreed aims and objectives, which were:

• To test approaches to AM of geese and in particular to test whether local populations of resident geese can be managed effectively to maintain a stable population at levels that reduce the impacts of goose grazing on agriculture, and retain the conservation interest.

• To test how effectively shooting levels can be managed, through setting agreed shooting levels and regular monitoring of population levels. This will protect populations from over exploitation, while at the same time reducing agricultural damage.

We also report on how successful the sale of goose meat was in reducing waste and generating income for the local economy. And we record some of the other activities the LGMGs undertook to promote Pilots and add value to them.

29 All Schemas were developed in 2014 by Jess Shaw. They are unpublished. Current SNH objective file references are A1204783 for Orkney Pilot, A1187425 for the Uist Pilot, A1308732 for the Tiree and Coll Pilot, A12322195 for the Lewis and Harris Pilot.

5.1. Did the Pilots deliver their agreed outcomes – to reduce agricultural damage and goose numbers?

5.1.1. Goose numbers All of the Pilots sought to reduce resident greylag goose numbers by approximately half (Tables 1 and 2). None of the LGMGs sought to amend these targets during the Pilots. All except the Orkney Pilot achieved their target population range (Figure 1). At the start of the Pilot, the population of resident greylag geese (RGL) was much bigger on Orkney, and the required AM bag return was simply beyond the capacity of the LGMG. The Orkney Pilot managed to contain the expansion of resident greylag birds at about 15,000 - 20,000 birds (at 31 March estimated from population model30) and 20,000 – 25,000 birds in the autumn (August count) but did not reduce goose numbers. This is a substantial success in preventing rapid and uncontrollable population growth; extrapolating from the population growth figures we can estimate that without the Pilot, the population could have grown from 20,000 birds in August 2012 to reach 50,000 birds by August 2017 (Figure 2).

The total and average bag returns achieved by the Pilots are summarised in Figures 3 and 4. The annual AM bag was between approximately 600 birds and 2,300 birds. On Orkney, the AM bag was dwarfed by the size of the sport shooting bag, whereas on Tiree, the two were about the same size. On Uist and Lewis and Harris the AM bag was much bigger than the sport shooting bag.

Figure 5 summarises the goose populations and bag returns for each of the Pilots and shows how they varied with time. Figure 5 demonstrates that the additional harvest taken under the AM Pilots made a difference and helped to achieve the agreed target populations. The Tiree, Uist and Lewis Pilots reached their target population range in years 3, 4 and 1 respectively, demonstrating that these LGMGs were well able to deliver the agreed AM bag. By contrast, the Orkney LGMG was not able to meet its AM bag targets and the size of its AM bag diminished as the Pilot progressed. Despite their best efforts, and a lot of hard work, the LGMG was showing signs of hunter fatigue as the long hours and early morning starts took their toll on the volunteer shooters. Coincidentally levels of sport shooting on Orkney increased during the first 4 years of the Pilot, and this helped to keep the goose population in check.

Comments from the Uist LGMG suggest that the LGMG expended considerable effort and expense on scaring birds to protect crops rather than trying to achieve the Pilot’s objective of population control. This will have reduced the efficiency of their control efforts. Nevertheless, the Uist Pilot was the only one to allow its population to drop below the minimum target range, and the population quickly recovered in the following year.

The Uist AM bag was taken outwith the open season in its first year but, after that, the AM bag was taken throughout the winter and into the spring. The AM bag appeared to quickly displace sport shooting, rising from 37% of the total bag in 2012/13 to 72% in 2016/17 (Figure 6). This shows that State support for AM can displace commercial shooting activity, and distort local economic activity.

In conclusion, the studies confirm that annual resident greylag productivity is high (at 28% - 34%), the populations are robust and they can absorb substantial losses without impact upon their conservation status.

30 From SNH schema (Unpublished SNH file A1204783) and data provided in Annual Reports.

The Pilots demonstrate that resident greylag goose populations can be reduced to deliver an agreed target range within an agreed timescale where reduction culls are adjusted annually to take account of factors such as the size of the population at the start of the year, productivity, the target population range and the chosen timescale. In the Uist, Lewis and Harris, and Tiree and Coll Pilot areas an average annual reduction cull of 38% - 58% of the population (estimated for 31 March) reduced resident greylag goose populations (estimated for 31 March) by 50% over a period of one to 5 years, with an annual take from each Pilot of about 600 – 2300 birds through AM and a total take of 1340 – 3760 birds from each Pilot.

The average annual take of 27% of the population of resident greylag geese (estimated for 31 March) on Orkney was not enough to keep pace with productivity and resulted in a small increase in the size of the population (estimated for 31 March) of about 1500 birds.

To maintain the resident greylag goose populations delivered at the end of the Pilots a maintenance cull would need to balance productivity. Figure 9 shows that an annual maintenance cull of 1,500, 1,000 and 950 birds would be required to maintain the spring 2017 population for the Uist, Tiree and Lewis Pilots respectively. This means an annual take of just 22 to 426 birds in addition to the number normally taken through sport shooting and individual licences. For Orkney the picture is different; the resident greylag population is much bigger there and an annual maintenance cull would total about 7,500 birds.

Some LGMGs have indicated they wish to adjust their target population range, reducing it further during the transitional phase and SNH has agreed to a further reduction on Uist and will review targets with other LGMGs.

5.1.2 Agricultural damage LGMGs commissioned contractors to measure goose damage, and to survey the local farming community for their views about geese. These surveys are outlined in Appendix 5.

Although LGMGs aimed to reduce agricultural damage LGMGs did not define this objective any further to identify what ‘success’ would look like. LGMGs should return to this question if they wish to develop clear goals for future goose management. All LGMGs would like the Pilots to continue, so they must at least feel that they are heading in the right direction.

As the AM Pilots successfully reduced or contained goose numbers it could be argued that levels of damage were also reduced or contained, but there is no evidence to demonstrate that this is the case. Two LGMGs repeated baseline surveys to quantify goose damage during the Pilot. Neither detected any reduction in goose damage. Sample sizes may have been too small to identify such a change. The conclusion is therefore that the Pilots did not demonstrate they had reduced agricultural damage.

On Orkney, in August, count data showed resident greylag geese had a strong preference for improved grassland and arable land and that goose numbers were concentrated in a few (widely distributed) fields. The geese were likely to target different fields each year. From 2012 to 2016, in august 50% of the geese were recorded in just 3.8% of the 1km squares of land, and just 1.0% of 1km squares held 20% of the total

number of geese counted31. This strong geographical concentration of birds could have restricted uptake to the Orkney Pilot as relatively few farmers would have suffered serious agricultural damage.

Pilot Start of End of Pilot Target population Pilot

Orkney 16471 19623 9000 - 11000 Uist 6479 4033 3600 - 4400 Lewis and Harris 5063 2677 2500 - 3100 Tiree & Coll 3003 1954 1650 - 2100

Table 1 Resident greylag goose population estimates for 31 March and Target Population Range for each of the Adaptive Management Pilots

Note: The numbers above show the estimated number of individuals at 31 March and they are derived from counts and bag data. The size of the pre-breeding population in spring is smaller than the post-breeding population in August/September; for example, the estimated number of Orkney birds at March 2017 is about 19,500 individuals whereas the last Orkney count in August 2017 shows about 24,000 birds. We have used the 31 March figures to record the Pilots’ progress because we found population models worked best with the March figures. We concluded the spring counts were generally more reliable than the August/September counts. Counts were undertaken at all Pilots in August or September, and in February or March for 3 of the Pilots; no spring count was made for the Orkney Pilot (because in spring both migratory and resident greylags are present on Orkney).

Pilot Improved Density at Density at Target land area start of end of density (ha) Pilot Pilot Orkney 39582 0.4 0.5 0.25 Uist 3864 1.7 1.0 1.0 Lewis and Harris 5576 0.9 0.5 0.5 Tiree & Coll 3331 0.9 0.6 0.5

Table 2 Goose density on improved land (birds per ha of improved land). SNH used the LCM32 to estimate the area of improved land (improved grassland and arable land) in the Pilot areas

31 Mitchell, C., A.J. Leitch & E. Meek. 2016. The abundance and distribution of British Greylag Geese in Orkney, August 2016. Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust Report, Slimbridge. 19pp. 32 Land Cover Map 2007. 2007. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology. Available at https://www.ceh.ac.uk/services/land-cover-map-2007. SNH used the LCM to estimate the area of improved land (improved grassland and arable land) in areas with high goose density.

Population size at begining and end of Pilots (31 March)

25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Lewis Tiree & Orkney Uist and

Number of greylag geese greylag of Number Coll Harris Start of Pilot 16471 6479 5063 3003 End of Pilot 19623 4033 2677 1954

Figure 1 Size of the resident greylag goose population at the start and end of the Adaptive Management Pilots. Note the Orkney and Uist Pilots ran for 5 years, the Tiree and Lewis Pilots ran for 4 and 3 years respectively.

Figure 2 Estimated expansion of the resident greylag goose population in the absence of the AM Pilot for Orkney. The project population is estimated from the 2008 count and an estimated rate of increase of c.19% per annum. August count data from 2008 and 2012 to 2016 are shown for comparison.

Total harvest during each Pilot 35000

30000

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 Number of greylag geese greylag of Number 0 Lewis and Tiree & Orkney Uist Harris Coll Total take 28980 18810 6387 5418 AM bag 7577 11420 4091 2363 Non-AM bag 21403 7390 2296 3055

Figure 3 Total harvest of resident greylag geese during each Pilot

Average annual take in each Pilot area

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Lewis and Number of greylag geese greylag of Number Orkney Uist Tiree & Coll Harris Annual take 5796 3762 2129 1355 AM bag 1515 2284 1364 591 Non-AM bag 4281 1478 765 764

Figure 4 Average annual harvest of resident greylag geese during each Pilot

Figure 5 Resident greylag goose AM pilots - summary graphs of population and harvest over time

Start Uist date: Feb-13 Target range: 3600 - 4400 birds Pilot Estimated Total AM bag Non-AM year population at end take bag of pilot year (March)

2012/13 6479 4757 1773 2984 2013/14 4917 3670 2225 1445 2014/15 4489 3728 2352 1376 2015/16 3107 3519 2827 692 2016/17 4033 3136 2243 893 Total 18810 11420 7390

Start Lewis & Harris date: Mar-14 Target range: 2500 - 3100 birds Pilot Estimated Total AM bag Non-AM year population at end take bag of pilot year (March)

2014/15 2978 1643 1118 525 2015/16 2718 2437 1679 758 2016/17 2677 1707 1294 413 Total 6387 4091 2296

Start Tiree & Coll date: Apr-13 Target range: 1650 - 2000 birds Pilot Estimated Total AM bag Non-AM year population at end take bag of pilot year (March)

2013/14 2397 1580 600 980 2014/15 2612 1350 620 730 2015/16 1942 1155 419 736 2016/17 1954 1333 724 609 Total 5418 2363 3055

Start Orkney date: Aug-12 Target range: 9000-11000 birds Pilot Estimated Total AM bag Non-AM year population at end take bag of pilot year (March)

2012/13 16471 5430 2532 2898

2013/14 15086 5887 1648 4239 2014/15 17282 6528 1615 4913 2015/16 16116 5855 705 5150 2016/17 19623 5280 1077 4203 Total 28980 7577 21403

Table 3 Population and harvest data for resident greylag geese in the AM Pilot areas

Figure 6 AM Bag – as a proportion of the total annual bag

Population after Maintenance AM Non-AM breeding cull bag bag in 2017 Pilot Uist 5470 1500 22 1478 T&C 2816 950 186 764 L&H 3631 1000 426 574 Orkney 26032 7549 3249 4300

Table 4. Annual maintenance culls required to maintain resident greylag populations at their spring 2017 levels. The maintenance cull would remove anticipated productivity for each Pilot area. It is derived from the Schema developed for each Pilot. The non-AM bag is the average recorded from bag returns during each Pilot.

5.2 Did the Pilots meet the underlying principles of adaptive management (were they planned, delivered and monitored effectively and sustainably, was there community buy-in)?

LGMGs focused their efforts on reducing goose numbers and these targets and the associated monitoring requirements were well defined before the Pilots began.

LGMGs undertook much of the monitoring recommended (Annex 4). There were some gaps in Uist and Lewis Pilots as they took longer to establish count and productivity protocols, and had difficulties recruiting volunteers to undertake these tasks. The Orkney and Tiree Pilots provided the most complete records for counts and productivity estimates. Their bird data were collected by contractors on Orkney and by RSPB staff on Tiree. The Uist and Lewis Pilots relied more heavily on volunteer and SNH/RPID staff input. Lewis and Harris and Orkney LGMGs produced the most complete records for damage monitoring, delivered mostly by external contracts.

As the Pilots progressed, SNH found that the spring counts were more consistent with the population estimates derived from the Schema and therefore concluded they were generally more reliable than the autumn counts. SNH therefore generally used the spring figures for monitoring progress towards the agreed population range (Figure 5). As count, bag and productivity data accumulated, SNH found the Schema worked relatively well for setting appropriate bags for most of the Pilots and therefore concluded that sport shooting bag estimates were fairly accurate. The exception was the Uist Pilot where the Schema often did not predict the required bag limits reliably; this could result from inaccuracies in count, productivity or bag data or from immigration/emigration of birds. GSAG examined the method that was used for the Uist counts and concluded that it was appropriate. Productivity was estimated by experienced WWT personnel but only in two years (2015/16 and 2016/17).

The AM bag was taken by experienced hunters and marksmen and their efforts were directed to fields with particular concentrations of resident greylag geese by a co- ordinator who was contracted to liaise between farmers/crofters and marksmen. The marksmen followed agreed shooting protocols and attended training workshops about animal welfare, the requirements of the food hygiene regulations, and the use of the non- lead shot provided for the AM bag. Operational details are given in the Pilots’ annual reports. All of their work was conducted safely, and professionally. They kept accurate records of their work and they did not exceed the bag limits given to them. At the outset this was a new task for all of the Pilots and its delivery was a significant achievement.

All of the Pilots worked steadily towards their agreed population targets, populations were monitored annually and cull targets were adjusted annually in light of count and productivity data. The approach taken therefore appears to manage resident greylag populations sustainably.

None of the LGMGs defined targets for reducing goose damage and they were slow to introduce monitoring to estimate goose damage. LGMGs should define targets for reducing goose damage if they are to have clear objectives for goose management in the future.

Baseline crop damage surveys revealed that farmers and crofters suffer crop damage from resident greylag geese; only the most vulnerable crops were surveyed (barley in Uist and Orkney, late cut silage grass or mix on Lewis and Harris and Tiree and Coll). Surveyors found that 30-90% of fields of these crops were affected by geese, many of the affected fields suffered low impacts and relatively few experienced high impacts.

Only the Orkney and Lewis and Harris LGMGs monitored goose damage annually. The other two established baseline damage levels in their second year, and they did not repeat them. This is a key failing given LGMGs sought to demonstrate that a reduction in goose population had an impact on the level of agricultural that damage geese cause.

Neither the Lewis and Harris LGMG nor the Orkney LGMG identified any reduction in the amount of agricultural damage caused by resident greylag geese. On Orkney there was no reduction in the size of the resident goose population so this is not surprising. On Lewis and Harris the sample size used for monitoring agricultural damage may have been too small to detect a change. Therefore, it isn’t possible to conclude the Pilots reduced goose damage.

Community buy-in to the Pilots was fostered by LGMGs. Before the Pilots began LGMGs consulted with local crofting and farming communities to gauge their level of interest in participating in the Pilots, and in volunteering to help with counts, and goose shoots. They also issued regular press releases, and both the Orkney and Uist LGMGs hosted events in conjunction with Scotland’s Natural Larder to promote the use of goose meat generated by the Pilots. Surveys revealed that farmers and crofters in the Pilot areas (Annex 5):

• consider the damage caused by resident greylag geese is unacceptable and consider it has increased over the past 20 years. • have mixed opinions about whether the Pilots’ management measures are working; for example, on Orkney and on Tiree and Coll many did not believe that the Pilot would reduce the goose population, but most thought that damage would be reduced if the target population range were achieved. • have a range of opinions about whether the farming/crofting community would continue to co-ordinate an annual cull of resident greylag geese after the Pilot has ended, for example, on Orkney most felt they would whereas on Tiree respondents gave a wide range of opinions in response to this question.

All LGMGs expressed an interest in continuing with the AM approach at the end of the Pilots. As a result, SNH awarded transitional funds to help LGMGs to make the transition to a self-help approach during 2017 and 2018.

The value of the Pilots to the local community can only be demonstrated once local communities take on full responsibility for their delivery. If local communities continue to control local resident greylag populations in an adaptive way, and they demonstrate impacts are reduced without threatening the populations of geese then we could conclude that the Pilots have been valued and the approach is sustainable and effective.

Each year annual reports recorded LGMGs’ progress for the NGMRG to review against the Pilots’ objectives and underlying AM principles.

5.3 Sale of goose meat

In order to avoid waste, SNH permitted licensed sale of the goose meat that was generated by the Pilots. EC approval was granted from July 2013 to March 2017. Sales were permitted to butchers, hotels and restaurants within the Pilot areas. Sales were also permitted from the Pilot areas direct to final consumers outwith the Pilot areas.

Such strict parameters are required to safeguard both resident greylag geese and other goose species. Sale of goose meat could have contributed to the crash in goose populations in the 1940s and SNH had to satisfy the EC that it would apply strict controls

to reduce the risk that cull targets would be driven by sale or allow other species to enter the food chain. The EC gave its approval to permit sale of resident greylag birds (a species listed on Annex III/B of the Birds Directive) under Article 6.3 of the Birds Directive and SNH implemented licensed sale through section 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Scotland) Act 1981 (as amended).

Any revenue derived from carcass sales was retained by the sellers; no levy was charged to help pay for the Pilots. The number of carcasses sold and the proportion of the AM bag that was sold are shown at Figures 7 and 8.

A high proportion of the Orkney Pilot’s carcasses were sold, the Uist and Lewis Pilots sold very few carcasses. However, the Orkney Pilot found the local market had reached capacity after a couple of years. LGMGs wanted to continue with sale, and to sell to retailers, hotels and restaurants across the UK. The Tiree Pilot chose not to sell any because there are few outlets on the island and no butcher to chill the carcasses or prepare them for sale.

1800 Sales per annum

1600 2013/2014 1400 2014/2015 1200 2015/2016 2016/2017 1000 Year of sale 800 600 400 Number of carcasses sold 200 0 Lewis & H Uist Sales Orkney Sales Sales 2013/2014 0 0 1213 2014/2015 664 83 1610 2015/2016 456 125 662 2016/2017 0 97 321

Figure 7 Number of goose carcasses that were sold

Sales as a proportion of carcasses 2013/2014

120% 2014/2015

100% 2015/2016 2016/2017 80%

60%

40%

Number of carcasses sold 20%

0% Uist Sales Lewis & H Sales Orkney Sales Year of sale

Figure 8 Proportion of the AM bag that was sold

5.4 Costs

The total cost of delivering the Pilots from 2012/13 to 2016/17 is given at Table 4. Whilst the annual cost is relatively modest, the total sum is nearly £350,000.

Tiree & Uist Lewis & Harris Coll Orkney Total 2012/13 £10,900 £19,554 2013/14 £9,022 £4,000 £18,202 2014/15 £54,901 £28,132 £15,200 £19,742 2015/16 £47,119 £17,519 £10,800 £13,858 2016/17 £35,447 £13,490 £10,800 £17,763 £346,448

Table 5 The total cost of delivering the AM Pilots. These costs exclude staff costs.

£60,000 Cost of the AM Pilots

£50,000

£40,000

Uist £30,000 Lewis & Harris

(£) Cost Tiree & Coll Orkney

£20,000

£10,000

£0 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

Figure 9 The annual cost of delivering the AM Pilots. These costs exclude staff costs.

The annual cost of delivering each Pilot was generally between ten and twenty thousand pounds (Table 5 and Figure 9). This money was spent on co-ordination, ammunition, insurance for the marksmen, and monitoring. Latterly, the Orkney Pilot asked for a modest contribution (£20) from participating farmers to pay for the marksmen’s travel costs, but this wasn’t always collected. Apart from this contribution, all of the Pilots’ costs were met by agency funds (SNH) and in kind contributions (volunteer marksmen in Orkney and Lewis and Harris, RSPB count and productivity data on Tiree and Coll, SNH staff contributions to counts/co-ordination work at the start of the Uist Pilot). Differences in the total cost of each Pilot arose because some chose to make greater use of staff and volunteer help to reduce their monitoring and co-ordination costs. Also, the cost of counting geese on Orkney was greater because of the number of islands involved.

The Uist Pilot was awarded additional funds from 2013/14 following the closure of the Machair LIFE Project. For several years this LIFE project supported a largely non-lethal goose scaring scheme in August/September to protect vulnerable machair crops (including native barley) from goose damage. The Uist Pilot received an additional £40,000 in 2013/14, £30,000 in 2014/15 and £20,000 in 2016/17 for additional marksman time to help the LGMG to achieve its population targets more quickly. It did not have an immediate effect on the number of birds that were shot; for example, although an additional £40,000 was spent on shooting in 2013/14, the 2013/14 AM bag was just 127 birds greater than the 2012/13 AM bag. Comments from the Uist LGMG suggest that some of this additional

23 shooting effort was used to scare geese (non-lethal scaring) rather than to increase the AM bag.33

Figure 10 shows the annual cost of the AM bag expressed as the total cost per bird shot dead, and Figure 15 shows the total cost minus associated monitoring costs to allow a fair comparison of the costs of shooting. When monitoring costs are excluded, the Orkney Pilot is the cheapest to deliver per bird shot. The Uist and Tiree Pilots were the most expensive to deliver per bird shot because they employed paid marksmen to deliver the AM bag (Figure 11).

After 2012/13, much of the Uist AM bag was taken during the open season. From 2013/14 onwards the number of birds taken through sport shooting reduced and it appears the Uist Pilot may have displaced local shooting activity. The amount of market distortion can be estimated if the sport shooting bag is assumed to remain at its 2012/13 level (nearly 3,000 birds) for the rest of the Pilot. The average annual AM bag (calculated as the total bag minus the sport shooting bag) would then be reduced from approximately 2,300 birds to approximately 800 birds, and the average cost of the AM bag would rise from £12/bird to about £70/bird (Figure 12). This suggests that State intervention (by offering to pay for the reduction cull during the open season) could have a significant effect on local markets.

Figure 10 Cost of delivering the AM bag (including monitoring costs)

33 Comments from Donald Muir, Uist LGMG. 29 January 2018. SNH file: A2711069

Figure 11. Cost of delivering the AM bag (excluding monitoring costs)

Figure 12 Cost of delivering the AM bag (excluding monitoring costs and assuming the Uist AM bag does not displace the sport shooting bag)

5.5 Summary of Pilots’ achievements and the challenges that they faced

The Pilots demonstrated that with co-ordinated effort, farmers and crofters can control greylag goose populations and maintain their conservation interest.

They were also able to demonstrate they could sell goose meat without jeopardising the conservation interest.

The Pilots faced a number of challenges: • The LGMGs’ initial focus was on organising the shoots and interest in monitoring goose numbers and farmers’ perceptions and goose damage was limited. This

restricted the information the Pilots generated and their ability to demonstrate a link between population control and a reduction in goose damage to agricultural crops.

• Reliable bag data are needed to inform AM. The Schemas (population models) suggest that the voluntary returns have proved adequate within the Pilot areas.

• Early intervention is essential; by the time the Orkney Pilot started the resident greylag goose population had grown too large - beyond the capacity for the LGMG to tackle through the AM Pilot approach.

• Crofters and farmers report that the geese are changing their habits in response to additional shooting pressure making them harder to shoot.

The Orkney Pilot faced particular challenges which can be summarised as: • Scale of AM bag required.

• Shorter timescale within which to deliver the AM bag (to avoid taking the AM bag when migratory greylags were present).

• When AM bag was taken there was long daylight requiring the volunteer shooters to be in place very early in the morning. This is hard to sustain when the shooters have ‘day’ jobs. They also report that the shooting is less predictable at this time of year.

• Goose distribution appeared to change in response to additional shooting pressure on the mainland, with geese moving to smaller islands where there was very little conflict before.

• Remoteness of some of the areas affected – small islands had geese, but most of the shooting teams came from the mainland so they incurred extra cost and time to travel.

• Level of participation – although high, not all farmers participated in the Pilot. Some reserved fields for early season sport shooting. Some chose not to join when a small charge was introduced to contribute to the marksmen’s travel costs. Some requested the marksmen to visit when they were experiencing crop damage, but didn’t do so in years when the weather allowed for a good harvest so fewer geese were shot. Population control effort needed to be sustained in all years to achieve the target population range

In addition, we can make the following observations: • Community buy-in to the project was key to the Pilots’ success and this was articulated through LGMGs.

• LGMGs enabled the delivery of goose population management and they are key to maintaining goose populations at their target levels.

• The studies confirm that resident greylag productivity is high, the populations are robust and they can absorb substantial losses without impact upon their conservation status. Population control can therefore be undertaken in an adaptable manner at low risk to the birds’ conservation status.

• The Schema developed by SNH was a relatively reliable tool that could be used to set bag limits and to summarise progress towards meeting an agreed target population range and to guard against over-exploitation.

• Allocation of dedicated staff time through external contracts provided more reliable monitoring results than when staff tried to fit extra work into their existing full time posts – but at an additional cost.

• The Pilots represented a range of different conditions and approaches and were therefore a good test for the adaptive principles that the NGMRG set; some had migratory greylag geese and others didn’t; goose densities and population sizes differed; ownership of shooting rights differed; some involved just a few people from the local community to deliver the goose shooting and some many, some used contractors and others volunteers. Despite these differences the adaptive approach largely worked and the general conclusions above apply to all of the Pilots.

• The annual running costs for delivering these demonstration pilots has been modest when we consider the cost of each individual Pilot, but added together over a period of 5 years the total cost, at £350,000 is significant.

• State intervention can distort local economic activity and can significantly increase costs to the public purse.

• Where the shooting rights belong to an estate, farmers and crofters must liaise with the estate(s) to sustain an adaptive management approach. Here, close co- operation and good working relations between the farmers/crofters and the estate(s) are key - as crofters and Argyll Estate demonstrated for the Tiree Pilot.

• The Pilots did not demonstrate that a reduction in the size of the goose population resulted in less goose damage to agricultural crops. Further crop damage surveys would be required to estimate the benefits of population control to the farming and crofting community.

• Cofters from Tiree have suggested that increasing goose numbers have had an adverse impact on other species such as snipe and corncrake; as it gets more difficult to grow grain and silage it is harder to maintain cattle numbers and the quality and quantity of their habitats can deteriorate. GSAG have been asked to develop research to look at goose impacts on other biodiversity interests.

5.6 Comparison between the four Pilots, and progress made on Islay

On Islay, where resident greylag geese from locations around Argyll and Northern Ireland are thought to congregate in late summer to feed on the malting barley crop, local land managers have co-ordinated management with the support of one of the distilleries to protect the crop through shooting greylag geese. This is an example of self-help to reduce the economic impacts of geese on crop production. The LGMG does not have results that we can report (Rae McKenzie pers com).

6. Did the Pilots demonstrate an approach that could be applied more widely to goose management?

LGMGs demonstrated that with early intervention and co-ordinated effort farmers and crofters can control goose populations and still maintain their conservation interest. All

of the Pilots used contractors for some tasks and some funding is required to pay for these contractors for example; the Pilots delivered their shooting effort by volunteer or contract marksmen; monitoring work was undertaken by contractors or volunteers, and the co-ordination work was delivered by staff or contractors (Annex 4).

Up to this point the Pilots have been funded entirely with government support. To be sustainable and applicable elsewhere population control needs to pay for itself – long- term agency funding for managing a quarry species is neither affordable nor sustainable and we suggest a self-help approach is therefore the way to go. The next logical step would be to work out how to meet the cost of supporting such work in the future. SNH has invited the LGMGs in the Pilot areas to consider how they might generate income, for example, from shooting and sale of goose carcasses, subscriptions from participating farmers, contributions from other stakeholders who may also have an interest in goose management (e.g. airport authorities, agencies managing public water supplies).

Successful delivery of resident greylag population control will be affected by future agriculture and land use policies. When developing these policies, government should consider the factors that contribute to an increase in the resident greylag goose population and, in particular, the ones it can influence; the provision of improved grazing and hunting effort. It must also consider the fragile nature of crofting. With an aging population (as younger people seek a living elsewhere) crofters cite difficulty in securing skilled labour34 and they may increasingly derive a living by other means. Their capacity to control the resident greylag goose population could diminish if crofting becomes unsustainable.

Lessons learnt from the AM Pilots will inform work with the European Goose Management Platform, so that management approaches trialled in Scotland can inform Flyway planning for a range of goose species.

7. Next steps

What are the next steps/actions required?

• SNH is supporting LGMGs to make the transition from the Pilots to a self-help approach from March 2017 until 31 March 2019. • SNH will support LGMGs to develop more sustainable funding arrangements for AM: we expect LGMGs to develop business model(s) that will generate income from sport shooting and the sale of goose meat, identifying: o barriers and how these might be overcome (for example, infrastructure requirements such as mobile chiller facilities or ownership of sporting rights), o limiting factors (such as the type/capacity of available accommodation, fit with other sporting activities, availability of staff/goose guides), and o potential impacts/benefits to biodiversity, other sporting activity, and the local community. • Business models should be produced in early summer 2018. • SNH will explore the potential to extend sale of resident greylag goose meat, including extending its sale to restaurants and hotels Scotland-wide, and produce a first report by August 2018. Implementation of this proposal would be delivered by others, Local Authorities in particular, to potentially help with tagging and traceability, and their support would therefore be essential.

34 Smith, H. 201? An Expensive Hobby?A Socio-Economic Study of Crofting on the Machair Available at http://www.gov.scot/Topics/People/Equality/Equalities/DataGrid/Age/AgePopMig http://www.machairlife.org.uk/MachairLife-Crofting-An-Expensive-Hobby.pdf

• SNH will share lessons learnt from the AM Pilots with members of the European Goose Management Platform, so that management approaches trialled in Scotland can inform Flyway planning for a range of goose species. • SNH will develop a national species management plan for the resident greylag goose to clarify its position on long term objectives for the species. This work will be undertaken in consultation with key stakeholders and will start in autumn 2018. • It is suggested that government supports the promotion of local wild fowling activities to assist farmers and crofters with goose control – promoting co-ordination and links between wild fowling communities and land managers/land owners experiencing serious agricultural damage. • SNH will ask GSAG to report on their research proposals to identify and estimate goose impacts on other biodiversity interests.

8. Policy implications

The results from the pilots will inform our approach to resident greylag goose management across Scotland and in particular whether a self-help approach can reduce or prevent goose impacts increasing or spreading.

Policy recommendations for further consideration are:

• To use self-help approaches, where possible, as the basic means to resolve goose management conflict. • To use AM approaches to control goose populations, where appropriate, to resolve goose management conflict. This includes gathering key data to inform the AM. • To extend sustainable sale of goose meat where appropriate controls can be put in place. • To promote goose meat as a source of local food from nature to encourage the use of carcasses generated by AM initiatives. • To develop agricultural and land use policies which support self-help approaches to controlling resident greylag goose populations (in particular considering the fragility of crofting systems, and the potential impact of these policies on the provision of improved grazing, the amount of hunting effort and local economic activity).

Morag Milne 29 June 2018 Revised on 26 September 2018 to address comments from NGMRG (after 6 May 2018 NGMRG meeting) and LGMG (after 6 July 2018 LGMG consultation) Revised on 30 November 2018 to address comments from NGMRG (after 5 October 2018 NGMRG meeting)

Annex 1. Terms of Reference to review the effectiveness of the Pilots.

Annex 2 Resident Greylag Goose Populations in Scotland

Annex 3 Expenditure for the adaptive management Pilots

Annex 4 Summary of the monitoring data collected during the adaptive

management Pilots

Annex 5 Summary of farmers’ perceptions and damage surveys

References

SNH Commissioned Report 371: The population size of breeding greylag geese Anser anser in Scotland in 2008/09 Available at http://www.snh.gov.uk/publications-data-and- research/publications/search-the-catalogue/publication-detail/?id=1511

Annex 1. Terms of Reference to review the effectiveness of the Pilots.

SNH will consider how effectively the adaptive management pilots for resident greylag geese have delivered their objectives and consider policy options for the future management of resident greylag geese.

To assess the effectiveness of the Pilots SNH will consider how well the Pilots delivered their agreed aims which are: • To test approaches to adaptive management of geese and in particular to test whether local populations of resident geese can be managed effectively to maintain a stable population at levels that reduce the impacts of goose grazing on agriculture, and retain the conservation interest.

In particular, SNH will consider: • Planning – have the Pilots agreed targets populations of resident greylag geese and agricultural damage? • Goose numbers – have the Pilots achieved their targets? • Agricultural damage – have the Pilots achieved their targets? • Control over the numbers of geese being shot each year – have Pilots been able to control the number of birds that were shot? • Were the Pilots able to assess the population size and trend and adjust shooting levels each year? • Was there agreement and full buy-in from local interests?

SNH will also consider • Carcass sales – what proportion of the bag was sold/consumed? • Cost – what was the cost of each Pilot? • Governance – how did the organisation of the Pilots differ? Are there any lessons to be learned from the differences in organisational structure?

SNH will then consider the following policy options: • Continued government support for Pilots • Continued government support for some elements of the Pilots/or for new things • Resident greylag population management by self-help (no government support for the Pilots) • Explore potential to sell goose meat (as a follow-on exercise over the winter)

SNH will consider the pros and cons of each option, how well it might deliver goose policy and its likely cost.

SNH 20 July 2017

Annex 2. Resident Greylag Goose Populations in Scotland

WWT report that ‘British Greylag Geese continue to do remarkably well, with numbers and distribution both increasing’. https://monitoring.wwt.org.uk/our-work/goose-swan-monitoring- programme/species-accounts/british-greylag-goose/ Counts from the islands where the adaptive management Pilots take place are presented on WWT’s web pages and reproduced below:

Figure 1

Late summer counts of British Greylag Geese on the Uists (blue circles), tiree (red squares), Orkney (black open symbols) and Harris/Lewis (Black triangles) 1986 to 2016. Five-year running means shown as lines. No data were available for the Uists or Harris/Lewis for 2016. From WWT available at https://monitoring.wwt.org.uk/our-work/goose-swan-monitoring- programme/species-accounts/british-greylag-goose/

To put these counts into context, population estimates from sites across Scotland are shown at Table 1

Geese per Number of ha Geographic Area geese improved 2008/9 land Uists and 5,948 1.54 Benbecula Tiree 3,370 1.01 Shetland 4,633 0.67 Colonsay 324 0.49 Lewis and Harris 1,912 0.34 Coll 278 0.28 Orkney 10,000 0.25 Islay 1,500 0.15

Lochalsh 284 0.14 Bute 528 0.10 Mull 743 0.10 Sutherland 1,000 0.05 Skye 536 0.04 Caithness 1,200 0.03

Ross and 848 0.02 Cromarty

Argyll 683 0.01

Table 1

Densities of breeding greylag geese in selected areas of north-west Scotland 2008/09, ranked according to decreasing density of geese per area of improved land. From Urquhart C. (2012). Densities of Scottish breeding greylag geese in selected areas of Scotland (Unpublished SNH file A714941)

Annex 3. Expenditure for the adaptive management Pilots

Uist 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total Co-ordination of marksmen £0 £0 £2,000 £2,000 £0 £4,000 Paid marksmen £10,900 £4,314 £44,500 £34,500 £26,800 £121,014 Insurance for marksmen, training for volunteer marksmen, ammunition, decoys £0 £4,708 £3,788 £3,800 £1,128 £13,423 Egg oiling £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Promoting use of goose meat £0 £0 £1,613 £1,600 £0 £3,213 Monitoring - goose counts and productivity, fa £0 £0 £3,000 £5,219 £5,519 £13,738 Total £10,900 £9,022 £54,901 £47,119 £33,447 £155,388 Table 1

Expenditure under the Uist AM Pilot

Tiree and Coll 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total Co-ordination of marksmen £0 £0 £200 £0 £0 £200 Paid marksmen £0 £4,000 £8,000 £8,000 £8,000 £28,000 Insurance for marksmen, training for volunteer marksmen, ammunition, decoys £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Egg oiling £0 £0 £3,000 £2,800 £2,800 £8,600 Promoting use of goose meat £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Monitoring - goose counts and productivity, fa £0 £0 £4,000 £0 £0 £4,000 Total £0 £4,000 £11,200 £10,800 £10,800 £36,800 Table 2.

Expenditure under the Tiree and Coll AM Pilot

Lewis and Harris 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total Co-ordination of marksmen £0 £0 £4,800 £3,400 £4,200 £12,400 Paid marksmen £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Insurance for marksmen, training for volunteer marksmen, ammunition, decoys £0 £0 £12,303 £6,802 £3,310 £22,415 Egg oiling £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Promoting use of goose meat £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Monitoring - goose counts and productivity, fa £0 £0 £11,029 £6,099 £4,461 £21,589 Total £0 £0 £28,132 £16,301 £11,971 £56,404 Table 3.

Expenditure under the Lewis and Harris AM Pilot

Orkney 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Total Co-ordination of marksmen £2,000 £3,134 £3,500 £3,500 £3,500 £15,634 Paid marksmen £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Insurance for marksmen, training for volunteer marksmen, ammunition, decoys £3,050 £7,438 £4,502 £2,461 £1,828 £19,279 Egg oiling £0 £0 £0 £0 £1,600 £1,600 Promoting use of goose meat £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 Monitoring - goose counts and productivity, fa£14,504 £7,630 £11,740 £7,897 £10,836 £52,605 Total £19,554 £18,202 £19,742 £13,858 £17,763 £89,119 Table 4.

Expenditure under the Orkney AM Pilot

Figure 1. Expenditure on co-ordination, marksmen, marksman support, and monitoring the Pilots.

A range of factors account for differences between the Pilots chiefly: • The size of the annual reduction cull • Whether marksman effort was undertaken by paid marksmen (Tiree and Coll) or by volunteers (Lewis and Harris, and Orkney) • Whether bird counts were undertaken by volunteers (Uist, Lewis and Harris), by contract (Orkney) or provided in kind by other organisations (Tiree) • Whether farmer surveys, damage surveys and productivity contracts were undertaken as frequently as planned (they were planned for the start and end of the Pilot for the first two and annually for productivity)

Annex 4. Summary of the monitoring data collected during the adaptive management Pilots

LGMGs collected monitoring data for the adaptive management Pilots. The number and timing of their monitoring surveys are detailed in the tables below.

Bird data - resident greylag geese Uist Undertaken by 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Annual count - SeptembVolunteers      Annual count - FebruaryVolunteers      Annual estimate of produContract (WWT)      Birds taken under licencData return to SNH      Birds taken through spoData return to SNH      Attaching collars to estimate immigration/emigration 

Lewis & Harris 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Annual count - SeptembVolunteers    Annual count - March Volunteers    Annual estimate of produContract (WWT)    Birds taken under licencData return to SNH    Birds taken through spoData return to SNH    Attaching collars to estimContract (Highland Bird Ringing Group) 

Tiree 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Annual count - August RSPB in kind     Annual count - March RSPB in kind     Annual estimate of produRSPB in kind     Birds taken under licencData return to SNH     Birds taken through spoData return to SNH     Attaching collars to estimate immigration/emigration 

Orkney 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Annual count - August Contract (WWT)      Annual count - DecembeContract (WWT)    Annual estimate of produContract (WWT)      Birds taken under licencData return to SNH      Birds taken through spoData return to SNH      Attaching collars to estimate immigration/emigration 

Damage surv e y (from 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 field data) Undertaken by Uist Contract (SRUC)    Lewis & Harris Contract (Walking the Talk)    Tiree Contract (Elaine Fraser)    Orkney SRUC/RPID in kind   Figure 1 Monitoring surveys undertaken during the Adaptive Management Pilots. Ticks indicate when a survey was undertaken, crosses show when a survey was planned but not undertaken. December counts were not essential to the Orkney Pilot but they were supported through the Pilot to provide context.

Annex 5. Summary of farmers’ perceptions and damage surveys

LGMGs commissioned surveys to record farmers’ attitudes to resident greylag geese and to record the damage that they caused to fields and machair strips. All Pilots established a baseline survey but most struggled to find the time to repeat these surveys. They are outlined below.

Damage reports A sample of fields and machair strips were surveyed to estimate damage caused to individual fields by resident greylag geese in August/September. The crops surveyed were the ones where damage was most keenly felt; barley on Orkney and Uist, grass or grass mix silage crops on Tiree and Coll and on Lewis and Harris. A randomised sampling strategy was used to select fields in each of the Pilot areas. Baseline surveys were established in the summer of 2014 for Uist, Lewis and Harris and Tiree, and in the summer of 2015 for Orkney. LGMGs aimed to undertake at least one repeat crop damage survey but this was only achieved on Lewis and Harris and Orkney. A second damage survey was undertaken on Uist but the methods weren’t comparable with the first survey so only one baseline survey is recorded (Table 1).

Surveyors found that crops suffered damage from resident greylag geese; 30-90% of fields were affected, and many of the affected fields with low impacts and relatively few experiencing high impacts (Table 1).

On Orkney, barley damage was surveyed in 2015 and 2016, and in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 a more general field survey was also conducted by SGRPID on a random selection of 5% of farms to estimate the number of farms suffering goose damage and the percentage area affected in each field. The surveys undertaken in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 found that 25% – 43% of farms experienced goose damage on Orkney; there were no clear trends to suggest the amount of agricultural damage was increasing or decreasing during the Pilot. This is perhaps not surprising as the size of the resident greylag population didn’t change much during this period. In 2015, it was estimated that 4% of the barley crop on Orkney suffered goose damage and in 2016 it was estimated at 5%. Further details are recorded in the 2016/17 annual report for the Pilot35 .

The silage fields surveyed for goose damage in each of the three surveys on Lewis and Harris were analysed to see if the amount of goose damage reduced during the Pilot. Eight of the thirty-two fields analysed showed a consistent reduction in damage, but with such a small sample size it is not possible to say there was any reduction in goose damage during the Pilot36.

35 Unpublished 2016/17 Annual report for the Orkney Pilot. SNH file: A2180206.

36Walking-the-Talk (2016). Survey of agricultural damage attributed to greylag geese in Lewis and Harris 2016. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report Unpublished. SNH file: A1967506 Walking-the-Talk (2015). Survey of agricultural damage attributed to greylag geese in Lewis and Harris 2015. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. SNH file:A1967239 Walking-the-Talk (2014). Survey of agricultural damage attributed to greylag geese in Lewis and Harris. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report . SNH file: A1653300

The machair crops surveyed for goose damage on Uist in August 2014 identified13 fields with goose damage; approximately 30% of the 44 machair fields surveyed37. Goose damage was found to affect 5 - 20% of the field area (mean = 10%). The mean field size was small at 2.3ha (ranging from 0.1 – 15 ha).

Damage survey 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 (from field data) Undertaken by Uist Contract (SRUC)   () Contract (Walking Lewis & Harris31 the Talk)    Contract (Elaine Tiree38 Fraser)    SRUC/RPID in Orkney kind () ()  

Table 1 Damage surveys undertaken during the Adaptive Management Pilots. Ticks indicate a survey was undertaken, crosses show when a survey was planned but not undertaken. Less detailed surveys are recorded in brackets.

The surveys recorded damage caused by resident greylag geese and the key findings are: Damage results Uist Aug 2014 Lewis and Harris Tiree Aug 2014 Orkney late cut silage from baseline (barley) Aug 2014 (late (late cut silage Aug 2014 (late cut assessment cut silage grass grass or mix) silage grass or mix) or mix) (Also limited reporting of damage to barley crop -not reported here )

Sample size – 44 66 57 37 number of fields % of fields with 30% 89% 46% 30% goose damage % of the field 5 – 20%, mean goose impacts 18% fields 30% had no detectable damaged by 10% were high in 12 damaged in > 5% impacts, 22% had some geese (21%) fields, of the field area, high impact damage, medium in 15 28% fields 38% medium impact and low in 32 damaged in less and 62% had low fields < 5% of the field impact. area. The maximum damage was 45- 50% of the field area Table 2 Key findings from the baseline damage surveys undertake in 2014

As none of the LGMGs identified any reduction in agricultural damage during the Pilots it is not possible to conclude the Pilots reduced goose damage. If damage levels were monitored from all the Pilot areas in future it might be possible to demonstrate a link between goose number and agricultural damage.

37 Raw data from Uist crop damage survey attached to email. Unpublished. 2015. SAC. SNH file: A2737181 38 Tiree goose damage survey - raw data attached to unpublished email. October 2014. SNH file: A1455161

Farmers’ perceptions LGMGs used questionnaires to gauge farmers’ and crofters’ perceptions of resident greylag geese, goose impacts and the level of agricultural damage they were experiencing. A questionnaire was to be issued at least twice; once at the beginning of the Pilot and once towards the end of the Pilot so that it could then pick up any significant changes in attitudes during the life of the Pilot. Most LGMGs chose to issue the questionnaire to a sample of farmers within the Pilot area by post. Figure 3 shows when the surveys were issued and Figure 4 indicates the scale of the surveys.

Crofter/Farmer 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 perceptions survey Undertaken by Uist Contract (SRUC)    Lewis & Harris Contract (SAC Consulting)   Tiree Contract    Orkney Contract (SAC Consulting)    Table 3 Farmer and crofter perception surveys undertaken during the Adaptive Management Pilots. Ticks indicate when a survey was undertaken, crosses show when a survey was planned but not undertaken.

Crofter/Farmer perceptions 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 survey Uist 13/100 (13%) 0/100 Lewis & Harris 62/160 (39%) Tiree 38/90 (42%) Orkney 150/510 (29%) 94/418(22%) 17/411 (17%)

Table 4 Number of questionnaires issued and returned39

Key findings Some of the key findings from the farmers’ and crofters’ perceptions surveys (from the 2017 survey on Orkney and from the 2015 survey on Tiree and Coll) were: • most farmers/crofters do not consider geese to be an important part of the landscape; and they feel that their interests are more important than conserving geese • on Orkney in 2017 farmers reported damage to grassland and crops by greylag geese was still a real issue: a total of 74% of respondents said they had had damage to their newly reseeded grass in 2016, 68% had reported damage to silage and 70% had experienced damage to their barley (on Tiree and Coll responses to this question were incomplete so it is not reported here)

39 Orkney farmer questionnaire. March 2017. Unpublished report. SNH file: A2225709 Orkney farmer questionnaire. 2015. Unpublished report. SNH file: A1677648 Orkney farmer questionnaire. 2013. Unpublished report. SNH file: A895527 Orkney farmer questionnaire. 2009. Unpublished report. SNH file: B1175396 Tiree farmer questionnaire. 2015. Unpublished report. SNH file: A1702737 Uist farmer questionnaire. 2015. Unpublished report/Raw data. SNH file: A? Lewis and Harris farmer questionnaire. March 2015. Raw data. SNH file: A1653321

• the damage caused by geese is unacceptable and farmers/crofters consider it has increased over the past 20 years. • various methods of non-lethal scaring are employed but they are considered ineffective or only effective for a short term • opinion as to whether the Pilots’ management measures are working was mixed; for example, on both Orkney and Tiree and Coll many did not believe that the Pilot would reduce the goose population, but most thought that damage would be reduced if the target population range were achieved • there are differing opinions about whether the farming/crofting community would continue to co-ordinate an annual cull after the Pilot has ended, for example, on Orkney most felt they would whereas on Tiree a wide range of opinions were expressed in response to this question.